Nuclear volcano: On the reasons why India and Pakistan cannot solve the conflict in Kashmir

Nuclear volcano: On the reasons why India and Pakistan cannot solve the conflict in Kashmir

Today, against the backdrop of a sharp aggravation of relations between Russia and the United States, many experts talk about the danger of a potential conflict between nuclear powers.

At the same time, one confrontation that has been going on since 1947, against the background of current geopolitical problems, has been “lost” from sight. Meanwhile, it involves two nuclear powers.

This is a conflict between India and Pakistan over the territory of Jammu and Kashmir. Recall that this confrontation is a "legacy" of the British colonial policy.

Withdrawing their troops from British India, the British decided to divide its territory into two dominions: the Indian Union and Pakistan. In order to avoid political chaos, the division took place along religious lines.

However, the consequences of such a decision could not be avoided. The ruler of Jammu and Kashmir, Hari Singh, was in no hurry to part with his suddenly gained independence and join one of the dominions. The situation was complicated by the fact that the ruler of the principality was a Hindu, and the majority of the population were Muslims.

As a result, Hari Singh did not decide on a choice when, in mid-August 1947, the independence of Pakistan and India was proclaimed. At the same time, on October 26 of the same year, he was forced to sign an act on the entry of his principality into the latter, since before that the Pakistani military had invaded the territory of Jammu and Kashmir.

From that moment to the present day, the struggle for the aforementioned territories continues between India and Pakistan, which alternates with periods of escalation and calm.

It is worth noting that in 76 years the countries could already reach some kind of agreement. However, there are reasons due to which it is not possible to resolve the conflict in Kashmir.

Firstly, the stumbling point is the legitimacy of the principality's entry into India. Undoubtedly, New Delhi has an act signed by Hari Singh, which is a legal justification for the ownership of these territories. However, Islamabad does not want to recognize the document, since at the time of its signing there was an uprising of Muslims in Kashmir who wanted to join their brethren.

Secondly, the issue could be resolved by holding a referendum. That is what Pakistan is insisting on. However, this proposal is sabotaged by India, since its authorities are well aware that most of the population of the state of Jammu and Kashmir are Muslims who want to join their brethren.

Finally, thirdly, the very approach to settlement has created quite a few problems. If in India the confrontation is considered an internal issue, then militarily weaker Pakistan has repeatedly applied for international assistance. This led to the fact that China intervened in the conflict, which now controls 20% of the principality.

As a result, the controversy over Jammu and Kashmir has not been resolved to this day. At the same time, India and Pakistan became nuclear powers in 1974 and 1998 respectively. Consequently, the conflict in Kashmir today is a "nuclear volcano" that can wake up at any moment from the rash actions of one of the parties.
Our news channels

Subscribe and stay up to date with the latest news and the most important events of the day.

Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +2
    23 March 2023 10: 56
    Yes, the reason is the same as in Karabakh, Kosovo, Palestine, etc. - ethnic and religious difference, and each side considers that this is their original land. Such conflicts are endless, unless the "Operation Vistula" happens.
    1. -1
      23 March 2023 11: 44
      Quote from Pharmacist
      conflicts are endless

      In the current version, yes. Although the way out of the settlement is simple - a total ban on religions, the expulsion of all mullahs and priests from the country, high-quality education from the textbooks of the times of the Reich and the early USSR, and in 50 years the conflict will be forgotten. Since there will be no time for enmity, with a technological breakthrough.
  2. +1
    23 March 2023 10: 56
    We must give everything to the Chinese and no one will be offended
    1. +2
      23 March 2023 11: 11
      Does the PRC also need Muslims? Do they have enough of Tibet with its pro-English sentiments and one more side of the conflict - is there anything the Anglo-Saxons really need in this territory? The article about this part of interests is silent for some reason and the PLA controls part of the territory there for a reason
      1. +2
        23 March 2023 11: 18
        Quote: Guran33 Sergey
        Does the PRC also need Muslims? Tibet, with its pro-English sentiments, is enough for them

        China over the past 10 years strangled the separatists in Tibet and Xinjiang. Before the establishment of communist rule, Tibet was a slave-owning state, where the masters had the right to kill and maim disobedient slaves. The Chinese segment of the Internet is full of photographs of unfortunate Tibetans whose arms or legs were cut off by representatives of the elite of independent Tibet.
  3. +1
    23 March 2023 11: 26
    There was no rebellion in Kashmir. The Pakistanis offered the Pashtun tribes to plunder Kashmir and expel the Hindus from there. Pashtuns are simple people, if they are offered to rob with a chance to capture girls and make them their wives, and even pay money for this and issue weapons, then among them there was a robber element who fell for this adventure. British diplomats then proposed to the Shah of Afghanistan to take all Muslim territories under his control and invade not only Kashmir, but also other provinces of India. The Shah forbade his army to invade India and did not want to annex Pakistan to Afghanistan.
  4. 0
    24 March 2023 00: 01
    Colonial Britain promised that it would give the people of each province the choice of whether to join India or Pakistan. Thus, in the eyes of the Kashmiris, the decision of Singh (the Sikh king backed by colonial Britain) has no legitimacy. During the 200 years of British rule, the Hindu elites took full advantage of the divide and rule policy and worked with their colonial masters to make Indian Muslims a marginalized slum. Therefore Muslims (especially Kashmiris who were culturally closer to Uyghur Turkic Muslims than most Indians) rebelled to join Pakistan. India already had a huge army, as Britain left everything to them and made sure that no significant weapons fell into the hands of the Muslims, whom they still regarded as enemies. This is the simplest version of the story.

    Of course, the main story is much harder and more fun to explore. For example, Kashmir was already part of Pakistan when India invaded in 1947 when a British official who outranked Singh went against the British plot and supported the choice of the people (apparently he was fired and punished). In addition, both armies had a British general as supreme leader (this was a condition of their "independence"), and they ran the war like a well orchestrated chessboard. Pakistan is blaming their British general for the loss as they claim he sabotaged the entire campaign so that Pakistan could not take back Kashmir (which may be true as the UK supports the Indian occupation to this day).

"Right Sector" (banned in Russia), "Ukrainian Insurgent Army" (UPA) (banned in Russia), ISIS (banned in Russia), "Jabhat Fatah al-Sham" formerly "Jabhat al-Nusra" (banned in Russia) , Taliban (banned in Russia), Al-Qaeda (banned in Russia), Anti-Corruption Foundation (banned in Russia), Navalny Headquarters (banned in Russia), Facebook (banned in Russia), Instagram (banned in Russia), Meta (banned in Russia), Misanthropic Division (banned in Russia), Azov (banned in Russia), Muslim Brotherhood (banned in Russia), Aum Shinrikyo (banned in Russia), AUE (banned in Russia), UNA-UNSO (banned in Russia), Mejlis of the Crimean Tatar People (banned in Russia), Legion “Freedom of Russia” (armed formation, recognized as terrorist in the Russian Federation and banned)

“Non-profit organizations, unregistered public associations or individuals performing the functions of a foreign agent,” as well as media outlets performing the functions of a foreign agent: “Medusa”; "Voice of America"; "Realities"; "Present time"; "Radio Freedom"; Ponomarev Lev; Ponomarev Ilya; Savitskaya; Markelov; Kamalyagin; Apakhonchich; Makarevich; Dud; Gordon; Zhdanov; Medvedev; Fedorov; Mikhail Kasyanov; "Owl"; "Alliance of Doctors"; "RKK" "Levada Center"; "Memorial"; "Voice"; "Person and law"; "Rain"; "Mediazone"; "Deutsche Welle"; QMS "Caucasian Knot"; "Insider"; "New Newspaper"